I looked forward to Harold Vanderpool’s guest column on climate change and global warming (“The ideology of climate change,” Daily News, April 10), hoping to find a considered and reasoned discussion of this issue.

For example: What does the scientific literature say about this phenomenon?

How do climate scientists interpret and evaluate this data?

How should we assess the relative risks associated with this, and what response should society take or not take?

Instead, I found a diatribe, short on facts and long on loose association.

In addition, we got the timeworn gimmick of accusing those with whom you disagree of ideological bias, while ignoring your own.

Surely, the good doctor can do better than this.

Alan Griffin


(1) comment

Gary Miller

Climate changes twice a day, four times a year and in my lifetime it went from warming to cooling or cooling to warming four times. The effect has been people went to bed after dark and arose after sun up.
Daily, monthly and annually it is warmer and lighter when the sun is up.
Seasonal changes on the sun cause seasonal changes on earth.
The sun has two seasons. Hoter for 11 or 22 years then less hot for 11 or 22 years.
The worst possible result would be no more climate change, a dead planet.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.